And They Say “Racist” Isn’t Just an Anti-White Slur. . .

The infamous “R-Word” has been used by melanosupremacists as little more than an anti-White slur from the beginning. It means nothing at all except as a means of shaming, dismissing, or attacking the race of a White person. It has no base in substantive ideals, it is merely a racial slur. Yet, it continues to be used as if it actually had some substantive definition—when everyone who pays attention knows all it means is “your White, and I hate you.”  The proof of this is in the pattern of usage: if you pay attention, you will discover that “racism” is always and only about making the White guy the Bad guy—and the recent furor by melanosupremacists and sympathizers on both the democratic and republican sides over Trump’s suspicions about the objectivity of the Latino judge presiding over Trump University’s fraud case illustrates the reality of this perfectly.

Trump’s comments are pretty straightforward: Trump merely suggested that given that the judge presiding over his case was a Latino with Mexican-born parents, he might be biased against him, a White man who wants to build a wall and return illegal Mexicans to Mexico:

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published Thursday, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the civil cases against Trump University because Curiel was “of Mexican heritage,” as Trump put it, and belonged to a Latino lawyers association.

Trump said Curiel’s ethnic background created an “inherent conflict of interest” because Trump has promised to build a wall along the US-Mexico border and deport immigrants who are in the country illegally.

In another interview, Trump repeated “we’re building a wall. He’s a Mexican.” Thus, Trump did something that is actually very common: he suggested that someone in a position of power is biased against him on account of race (theirs and/or his). In other words, he suggested that the judge in question might be “racist” against him. This is something melanosupremacists should know oh so much about. Non-Whites are constantly alleging that White people are biased against them because we are White. In fact, crying “racist” against White people is practically the central strategy of melanosupremacists in politics today.

It is apparently perfectly fine for a non-White person to suggest that a White person is biased against them because of race, but watch and you will notice something: every time a White person moves to make the same accusation, they are suddenly. . .”racist.”

When a non-White accuses a White person of being “racist” they are never attacked as “racist” themselves for suggesting it. But how dare a White person suggest that a non-White person is “racist” against them, and somehow, THEY are suddenly the “racist.” In melanosupremacy, calling someone “racist” is heroic, unless you are White and the person you name is not, in which case calling someone “racist” is (guess what) “racist” for you.

This ridiculous practice of accusing White people who are “calling out racism” from non-Whites of being ones who are “racist” is nothing new. I stumbled across a good example of this last year, printed in an academic journal no less, where an article details the accusations from melanosupremacist minority studies teachers that White students who push back against being racially slandered and abused  by the teacher in class are somehow “racist” for pointing out the open melanosupremacy on display. They even described one professor as saying that:

[She] felt fearful and angry when [a] white student accused her of not providing a safe space for white students in her classroom. This student and his white classmates then complained to her department chair. . . [She] attributes their decision to report her to the chair to her. . .identity as an Asian American woman.

This is hatred. For people who spend their lives talking about perspectives, tolerance, and diversity, only a profound disrespect for the basic rights of White people could lead to such an attitude, such a complete rejection of the White student’s perspective, and substitution of their own anti-White biases instead. And for people who spend their lives accusing White people of “racism”, it is nothing but flagrant hypocrisy.

This twist points out the real way this meaningless term is being used: as a slur against White people. The only people who can claim they are suffering from “racism” are non-Whites claiming that Whites are “racist.” White people must be the bad guys under any circumstance, and so they are not allowed to claim that a non-White person might be “racist” against them. Since equalitarianism demands that so-called “racism” (see my note at the end) is a terrible sin, than the person who is a “racist” is the bad guy. And they are determined to make the White guy the bad guy–every time. White people are “racist” by default because they are White, and so when they make such a claim THEY are, well, still “racist.” In every situation, who is the guy we hate? the White guy.

It has nothing to do with any substantive definition of what “racism” is supposed to be: it is all about making sure the White side is the “bad” side every time. This has been repeatedly demonstrated again and again, long before Trump’s comments last week. But as is so often the case, melanosupremacists are putting their hypocrisy and anti-White hatred on full display in their response to Trump.

Just a few examples:

“If you are saying he can’t do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?” (Journalist)

“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of the textbook definition of a racist comment.” (Paul Ryan)

Really now?  Where were these experts on what “racism” is when Obama publicly stated that White police officers can’t do their jobs because they are White? :

“What we saw was that the Ferguson Police Department. . .was biased against African-Americans in that city who were stopped, harassed, mistreated, abused, called names. . .”

That certainly sounds like saying someone can’t do their job because they are White to me. He certainly made no more of an attempt to hide his accusation of racial bias than Trump did. Where was all the outrage then?

“How dare he challenge as judge’s responsibility, a judge’s adherence to the Constitution, because he is of Mexican descent?” (Anna Navarro)

Where was she when the responsibility and adherence to the Constitution of Darren Wilson, Stephanie Karr, and numerous other White justice officials in Ferguson was being challenged because they were White?

 “Are you comfortable with a potential president attacking a federal judge for his heritage?” (Journalist)

Sheesh, I wonder if this idiot is comfortable subscribing to an ideology that doesn’t just attack a White judge, jury, attorney, or law enforcement officer from time to time over their “heritage” but which makes attacking White people over their “heritage” a routine part of its worldview?

This story has been repeated over and over. From the Black Lives Matter Movement, all the way to the Supreme Court, we have heard over the years, again and again and again, about how White people are biased against non-Whites because they are White. We have heard so many allegations that a White person in the justice system—no, lets scratch that: the vast majority of White people in the justice system—are “racist” because they are White, that all any White person who is paying attention can hear in this attack on Trump is an attack on Whiteness and the White population. But, I think by now it should be obvious that most of us White people don’t much care about Trump’s recent attack on this particular judge—in fact, many of us are happy to see a major political candidate finally willing to stand up for himself as a White man. “Racist” is only an anti-White slur anyway—if people are going to insist on using it, it’s at least about time it started getting turned around.

And ya know, why couldn’t he be right, after all?

NOTE: obviously, as a racialist myself, I recognize that the term is sometimes *supposed* to mean someone who believes that race is a biological reality and is important to our lives. Basically, someone like me. Obviously therefore, I take getting called that as something of a compliment. But as intelligent activists, we pay attention to the cultural environment we are forced to work in, and that means recognizing the way melanosupremacists use this word to attack White people, and what their pattern of usage can tell us about how they really think about White people. It’s important to know the enemy, to win the war.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s